Freedom of speech versus freedom to be obnoxious.

That might be the best way to frame the conversation that has been taking place on our Opinion pages and online – not to mention in my personal e-mail folder – ever since I chose to publish a letter to the editor last Sunday about the Legislature’s ill-fated attempt to adopt a resolution calling for the impeachment of President Bush and Vice President Cheney.

Check that.

It wasn’t so much about impeachment per se as it was about the arguably insulting language directed at the prime sponsor of the resolution: state Rep. Betty Hall of Brookline.

The letter, written by Ben Charles of Nashua, started off innocuously enough by expressing confusion over our decision to publish a front-page story one day on Hall’s impeachment effort and then to editorialize against it on the next. (A textbook illustration on the independence between the news pages and the editorial pages, by the way.)

Then the letter writer turned his attention to Hall, the 87-year-old Democratic lawmaker who has devoted much of her life to public service.

Among the phrases that some readers felt were over the line:

• Referring to Hall as a “generic buffoon” and a “misguided relic.”
• Suggesting “her brain has atrophied to the point that it no longer recognizes the Constitution for what it is but prefers to use it as a morality flag.”
• Recommending that if she and her “loathsome cohorts” really wanted to make a positive contribution to society, they should all “double-time it to meet your maker.”

As you can imagine, the letter – and more to the point, our decision to publish it – sparked criticism among some readers, who felt it was unsuitable for publication in this newspaper.

Among the first people to respond was Mike Mullinax of Nashua, whose letter was published on Wednesday. He argued that such language might be appropriate in a barroom, but not in a family newspaper.

“Presenting such caustic viewpoints in this paper is an embarrassment to our community,” he wrote. “It misleads many to view this locality as a safe haven for individuals whose only means of expressing a viewpoint is the figurative disembowelment of others.”

That letter resulted in more than a dozen online comments by the end of the day Wednesday, some in agreement and others who felt it was fine to allow Mr. Charles to have his say.

“Thank you Mike for calling for contributors to raise the bar and promote respectful discourse on important matters, no matter if they are in the minority Republican or Democratic Party, or with the decidedly independent party,” Marty Walsh wrote.

On the other hand, someone logging in as “Dot” disagreed.

“Isn’t ‘Freedom of Speech’ one of our constitutional rights? Or is that gone now too?” she wrote. “If you don’t like what’s printed in The Telegraph, don’t read it! Everybody has a right to their own opinion. If you don’t like it, too bad!”

Now, some of you may recall that when I wrote a column last month explaining the guidelines I use in choosing letters for publication, I touched briefly on the kind of letters that were unlikely to see the light of day. I described those as “libelous, insulting or patently offensive.”

All of which brings us to the question of the day: Did the original letter writer’s anti-Hall diatribe cross that line?

In situations such as this, I basically have four options: publish the letter as is; edit out the offensive language; contact the letter writer and ask him or her to tone it down; or reject it out of hand.

Looking back, perhaps I should have engaged Mr. Charles in a conversation about softening some of the language in his letter, while still permitting him to make his point. As a matter of principle, however, I’m generally reluctant to do that, since these letters are supposed to represent your thoughts, not mine.

Truth be told, these aren’t my favorite types of letters anyway. Philosophically, I’m much closer to Mr. Mullinax in preferring though-provoking, well-reasoned letters that contribute to a civil discourse of the issues of the day.

Whether that is a positive or negative attribute for someone in my position, of course, is for you to decide.

But enough about me. What would you have done? Run it? Not run it? Why or why not?

While this train already has left the proverbial station, no doubt the same dilemma will arise again, particularly as we draw closer to state and national elections. Why not use it as a learning experience?

You can either shoot me a note to my work e-mail address or post your comments at the bottom of this blog. Maybe I’ll even publish some of your responses in the paper at a later date.

Just don’t call me any names.

Nick Pappas is editorial page editor of The Telegraph. He can be reached at 594-6505 or npappas@nashuatelegraph.com.